An individual right? CNN Poll

If you have seen this and voted, GREAT, if you haven’t, PLEASE vote!! I was a *no-brainer* for me, and should be for any thinking person, but we ALL know that there are many brainless moonbats out there. Here’s a chance to combat those moonbats!

Please vote on this gun issue, 2nd Amendment question on USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time.

Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

First – vote on this one.

Second – launch it to other folks and have THEM vote – then we will see if the results get published.

Vote in the USA Today poll – click on the link below.

The Question is:Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

Here’s my take on it. The term “inalienable rights” is in the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are an expression of the Declaration. At least that is how I was taught.

Before our Founders rebelled, and the United States was formed there was what was called the “Rights of Englishmen.” Those rights had been in place since the Magna Carta had been written, and there, it is stated as a God given right, to possess arms for the common and personal defense. Those were “individual rights.” Granted, the belief was “God given” but the King didn’t see it that way. So it was written down in the common language of the times.

Our entire Bill of Rights is based upon those very same beliefs. Those are individual rights belonging to everyone, and are not granted by any king, government, or authority.

And please, don’t come back with the “limited rights” argument expressed as by shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime. If the damned thing is in fact on fire it’s your civic duty to warn others of the danger.

I guess Henry didn’t read what I posted about warning people in burning buildings… That, or I misunderstood his statement.

His point though, is valid. Probably the best example being the liberal support of the Lautenberg Domestic Violence law, and it’s built in ex post facto application of the law. Clearly in opposition to the Constitution.